Revisiting Joe Nathan

[Hosak8]

Why people continually insist that you should put your best reliever in some of the easiest spots you would bring a reliever into is beyond me.

 

The closer is up there with the leadoff hitter among the most overrated roles in baseball. They come in in the 9th, with a lead, often of 2 or 3 runs, and nobody on and nobody out. Meanwhile, you're bringing other (supposedly lesser) guys into tight spots with men on and often less comfortable (and sometimes no) leads.

 

Where on earth is the logic?

 

I'll likely be ridiculed for this, but here goes anyway...

 

So, a message board poster has it right, and ALL of baseball has it wrong? Come on, it's really not too difficult to figure out. The reason that the 9th is a much more important role, and *usually* the best place for a closer is due to the fact that you are down to your final 3 outs, if any, by that time in the game. You give up the lead in the 7th, you still have 6 or 9 outs offensively. In the 9th, the game is over, or you have 3 outs to play with. That is INCREDIBLY different, and it's why great closers are hard to come by. Pressure is much different in that situation, and it's why guys like Farnsworth can be very good middle relievers and subpar closers.

 

Okay, NSB groupthinkers, flame away.

 

At what point do you think a victory is more in jeopardy and a run is more likely to score.. in the 9th, with a 1 run lead (basically the most difficult situation a closer will face), nobody on, and nobody out... or, say, in the 7th with a 1 run lead with runners on first and third and one out?

 

Extremely myopic point of view. At what point are we more likely to score a run or two and take the lead? In a game where we have 3 innings (and therefore, an at bat for everyone in the lineup) or in the 9th inning alone?

[Wrigley Rat]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter 2) top 3 pitcher 3) closer 4) upgrade at SS 5) upgrade at CF

 

I agree completely. Hendry has been trying all offseason to acquire Roberts (1-leadoff hitter), and reportedly has been after Bedard, Burnett, and Santana (2-top 3 pitcher). It's time to move to our third most pressing need, a closer.

 

This feels exactly like it did with the Bears this year when they traded away Thomas Jones because we had Cedric Benson ready to go at runningback. Just because we have "options" at closer doesn't mean they will work. Dempster, Howry, and Wood have all had chances to look good in the 9th, but haven't done so consistently. Marmol could get a chance but he is unproven.

 

Go out and get proven guys whenever they are young and available. Nathan is a perfect example of that. Sign him long-term. Trade him down the road. The Cubs have money - they are near $120 million this year, but should be giving Minnesota someone like Dempster and/or Marquis in this trade. That would free up money for this year.

[SABR Gamer]

Can wrigley23 be banned? So much wasted thread space from his meaningless posts and arguments inspired by them.

 

Bleh anyway....we don't need Joe Nathan, especially at his price tag.

[SABR Gamer]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter 2) top 3 pitcher 3) closer 4) upgrade at SS 5) upgrade at CF

 

I agree completely. Hendry has been trying all offseason to acquire Roberts (1-leadoff hitter), and reportedly has been after Bedard, Burnett, and Santana (2-top 3 pitcher). It's time to move to our third most pressing need, a closer.

 

This feels exactly like it did with the Bears this year when they traded away Thomas Jones because we had Cedric Benson ready to go at runningback. Just because we have "options" at closer doesn't mean they will work. Dempster, Howry, and Wood have all had chances to look good in the 9th, but haven't done so consistently. Marmol could get a chance but he is unproven.

 

Go out and get proven guys whenever they are young and available. Nathan is a perfect example of that. Sign him long-term. Trade him down the road. The Cubs have money - they are near $120 million this year, but should be giving Minnesota someone like Dempster and/or Marquis in this trade. That would free up money for this year.

 

Yep, we should do Marquis and Dempster for Nathan, I think that ought to be enough right?...... Why can't I be as smart as you?

[Guest]

All this talk and not one single mention of Mike Wuertz being an asset for the team in the late innings.

 

Poor Mike.

 

Just goes out year after year and performs at a very good to excellent level and gets no mindshare from the fans. We've already got four very good right handed relievers. We don't need another one.

 

Period.

[Rob]

Rob, you are either very young or young & anal. You'll eventually grow out of it. Good luck.

 

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information."

 

Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong.

[Guest]

Oh yeah, if I see another insult, whether it is directed personally or some stupid "groupthink" comment, there will be a vacation handed out.

[Rob]

Oh yeah, if I see another insult, whether it is directed personally or some stupid "groupthink" comment, there will be a vacation handed out.

 

Oh, come on. I thought I was being rather clever.

[Hosak8]

Rob, you are either very young or young & anal. You'll eventually grow out of it. Good luck.

 

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information."

 

Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong.

 

Any why is it wrong? Because there is no Sabermetric to measure what an effective leadoff hitter means to a team? What is it with so many on here who think everything has to be measurable by some ridiculous formula to be valid?

[Wrigley Rat]

I put the priority on: 1) leadoff hitter 2) top 3 pitcher 3) closer 4) upgrade at SS 5) upgrade at CF

 

I agree completely. Hendry has been trying all offseason to acquire Roberts (1-leadoff hitter), and reportedly has been after Bedard, Burnett, and Santana (2-top 3 pitcher). It's time to move to our third most pressing need, a closer.

 

This feels exactly like it did with the Bears this year when they traded away Thomas Jones because we had Cedric Benson ready to go at runningback. Just because we have "options" at closer doesn't mean they will work. Dempster, Howry, and Wood have all had chances to look good in the 9th, but haven't done so consistently. Marmol could get a chance but he is unproven.

 

Go out and get proven guys whenever they are young and available. Nathan is a perfect example of that. Sign him long-term. Trade him down the road. The Cubs have money - they are near $120 million this year, but should be giving Minnesota someone like Dempster and/or Marquis in this trade. That would free up money for this year.

 

Yep, we should do Marquis and Dempster for Nathan, I think that ought to be enough right?...... Why can't I be as smart as you?

 

Message Boards are filled with people making false assumptions, but that's OK - I don't get mad that easily.

 

By saying that Minnesota would be taking Dempster and/or Marquis I was in no way insinuating that would be it. I expect Minnesota to get quite a nice package for one of the best closers in the game. I am one person who rarely over-values the Cubs' players. I personally don't think Marquis or Dempster should have much trade value because I wouldn't want them on my team at their respective prices, however we have heard that the opposite is true. Teams have at least expressed interest in Marquis. Perhaps that is with the Cubs kicking in a bunch of money. Who knows.

 

Either way, I think all of us reading these message boards are looking for something to talk about - right now, Nathan is about it.

[Rob]

Rob, you are either very young or young & anal. You'll eventually grow out of it. Good luck.

 

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information."

 

Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong.

 

Any why is it wrong? Because there is no Sabermetric to measure what an effective leadoff hitter means to a team? What is it with so many on here who think everything has to be measurable by some ridiculous formula to be valid?

 

It's not that they're incapable of measuring it. It's just that the measurement is zero.

[Guest]

Rob, you are either very young or young & anal. You'll eventually grow out of it. Good luck.

 

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information."

 

Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong.

 

Any why is it wrong? Because there is no Sabermetric to measure what an effective leadoff hitter means to a team? What is it with so many on here who think everything has to be measurable by some ridiculous formula to be valid?

 

It's not that they're incapable of measuring it. It's just that the measurement is zero.

It's not that the value is zero. It's just that the measurement is small enough to be far, far less important than just adding good hitters whatever spot they happen to bat in.

[Rob]

Rob, you are either very young or young & anal. You'll eventually grow out of it. Good luck.

 

I get it... "grow out of it" is code for "become incapable of processing new information."

 

Being older isn't an excuse for being inaccurate. I don't care if you had to walk six miles uphill in the snow to make your post, it's still wrong.

 

Any why is it wrong? Because there is no Sabermetric to measure what an effective leadoff hitter means to a team? What is it with so many on here who think everything has to be measurable by some ridiculous formula to be valid?

 

It's not that they're incapable of measuring it. It's just that the measurement is zero.

It's not that the value is zero. It's just that the measurement is small enough to be far, far less important than just adding good hitters whatever spot they happen to bat in.

 

Leave my hyperbole alone!!!

 

Honestly though, the myth of the prototypical leadoff hitter has been disproven time and time again. If you want to pretend lineup order matters much (and it really doesn't), then what the studies actually show is that an entirely different approach to the one we use now is optimal. Speed is much more important lower in the lineup as opposed to higher, for instance.

[Wrigley Rat]

All this talk and not one single mention of Mike Wuertz being an asset for the team in the late innings.

 

Poor Mike.

 

Just goes out year after year and performs at a very good to excellent level and gets no mindshare from the fans. We've already got four very good right handed relievers. We don't need another one.

 

Period.

 

Tim - I agree that the right side of our bullpen is packed, but I have a feeling that if a trade for Nathan could be made, it would include Wuertz in it (he's from Austin, Minnesota - Home of Spam (Hormel's - not internet junk mail)).

 

Although Wuertz is solid, he is a valuable trading chip at his low price. That would make our bullpen Nathan, Howry, Marmol, Wood, Dempster/Marquis, Eyre, and Lahey. You don't have to agree, but I likey. :)

[Guest]

All this talk and not one single mention of Mike Wuertz being an asset for the team in the late innings.

 

Poor Mike.

 

Just goes out year after year and performs at a very good to excellent level and gets no mindshare from the fans. We've already got four very good right handed relievers. We don't need another one.

 

Period.

 

Tim - I agree that the right side of our bullpen is packed, but I have a feeling that if a trade for Nathan could be made, it would include Wuertz in it (he's from Austin, Minnesota - Home of Spam (Hormel's - not internet junk mail)).

 

Although Wuertz is solid, he is a valuable trading chip at his low price. That would make our bullpen Nathan, Howry, Marmol, Wood, Dempster/Marquis, Eyre, and Lahey. You don't have to agree, but I likey. :)

I have a really hard time believing that the incremental value in going from Wuertz to Nathan in the pen won't be worth anything close to the price in additional players and salary. If Minny is giving him away, great. If we have to pay anything of a steep talent price...no thanks.

[wrigley23]

all i have ever done is simply state my opinion...same as you. the difference is that you are not accepting of mine. You state the same things over & over again but that's ok...when i do it...it's redundant. Tim..I apologize for the earlier comment. I just get tired of defending my opinion when that is what a message board is all about.

[WilcoFan]

all i have ever done is simply state my opinion...same as you. the difference is that you are not accepting of mine. You state the same things over & over again but that's ok...when i do it...it's redundant. Tim..I apologize for the earlier comment. I just get tired of defending my opinion when that is what a message board is all about.

 

 

Its not your opinion that is the problem. It is your lack of any substantive evidence whatsoever to back it up. Simply saying that "the Cubs want a new leadoff hitter" has absolutely no weight in proving that getting a new leadoff hitter would make any difference whatsoever.

 

The leadoff position is utterly arbitrary. As I stated earlier, you might as well advocate for the Cubs to get a new #7 hitter. Its equally arbitrary and would have roughly the exact same effect on the lineup that a new #1 would have.

 

EDIT

 

As far as "what a message board is all about" is this: a message board is designed to facilitate an exchange of ideas in the hopes of attaining some level of truth. If all you want to do is advocate forcefully for your opinion without having to be questioned about your evidence, you're better off starting a blog. The real meaning behind a message board is exchange of ideas. You don't seem to want that.

Edited February 3, 2008 by WilcoFan

[Rob]

all i have ever done is simply state my opinion...same as you. the difference is that you are not accepting of mine. You state the same things over & over again but that's ok...when i do it...it's redundant. Tim..I apologize for the earlier comment. I just get tired of defending my opinion when that is what a message board is all about.

 

 

Its not your opinion that is the problem. It is your lack of any substantive evidence whatsoever to back it up. Simply saying that "the Cubs want a new leadoff hitter" has absolutely no weight in proving that getting a new leadoff hitter would make any difference whatsoever.

 

The leadoff position is utterly arbitrary. As I stated earlier, you might as well advocate for the Cubs to get a new #7 hitter. Its equally arbitrary and would have roughly the exact same effect on the lineup that a new #1 would have.

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

That reminds me... another anachronism... the #2 hitter with "good bat control" who can lay down a bunt or hit and run. Puhleaze. Batting Theriot or somebody like that #2 hurts the team considerably, simple because he's taking away plate appearances from somebody who can actually hit.

[WilcoFan]

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment.

 

The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order.

[Rob]

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment.

 

The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order.

 

I know what you meant. I'm just a nitpicker.

[Hosak8]

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment.

 

The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order.

 

Right. Because Albert Pujols would be just as valuable batting leadoff as he is batting 3rd, right?

[Rob]

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment.

 

The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order.

 

Right. Because Albert Pujols would be just as valuable batting leadoff as he is batting 3rd, right?

 

You don't think Albert Pujols batting an additional 40 times per season would help to offset most of the difference?

 

Actually, Tom Tango advocates batting Pujols second in that lineup.... food for thought.

[imb]

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment.

 

The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order.

 

Right. Because Albert Pujols would be just as valuable batting leadoff as he is batting 3rd, right?

 

the difference in how many times he gets on compared to how many times an average hitters gets on, coupled with his slg% advantage means that, yes.

[Hosak8]

 

Not really, a leadoff hitter gets probably an extra 120 PA over the #7 hitter over the course of the season.

 

I may have been unclear in my original sentiment.

 

The point was more that, when the substantive statistics behind the two hitters in question aren't significantly different, advocating one because he fits the mold of a "traditional" leadoff hitter doesn't make sense. Using position in the order as a defining characteristic is what is arbitrary, not the difference between the two spots in the order.

 

Right. Because Albert Pujols would be just as valuable batting leadoff as he is batting 3rd, right?

 

You don't think Albert Pujols batting an additional 40 times per season would help to offset most of the difference?

 

Actually, Tom Tango advocates batting Pujols second in that lineup.... food for thought.

 

Nope, sure don't. If Pujols is hitting leadoff, he would walk an awful lot more. But, in that lineup, Pujols being on base with no outs and anyone else on that team hitting behind him is far less desirable than Eckstein being on base with no outs and Pujols batting.

[WilcoFan]

 

Nope, sure don't. If Pujols is hitting leadoff, he would walk an awful lot more. But, in that lineup, Pujols being on base with no outs and anyone else on that team hitting behind him is far less desirable than Eckstein being on base with no outs and Pujols batting.

 

Why would he walk a lot more? The additional number of at bats he would get over a season would seemingly mitigate the number of times he leads off an inning. Furthermore, I would assume that pitchers would be much more likely to pitch to him if he lead off an inning than if there were runners on, assuming that the worst damage he could do would be a single run. I don't see how, over a the course of 600 ABs, the difference would be statistically significant.

 

As far as I know, the only long-term study of the batting order issue was done by Baseball America, and I believe it was found that batting order is relatively insignificant. From what I remember, they basically advocated putting the players in order of OBP from highest to lowest, but seemed to say that in the grand scheme of things, there wasn't a significant difference regardless. Someone else could probably fill in the details better than me here.